OUR METHODOLOGY

Every conclusion
needs a foundation.

A structured research file makes it possible to see the evidence, its limits and the work still to be done.

Identify the exact service

A brand may be used by different entities or websites. Record the exact legal entity, service and time period before drawing conclusions.

Read the primary record

Prefer the regulator’s register, original notice or official decision. Keep the source title, publication date, scope and last check visible.

Separate facts from interpretation

State what a source actually documents. Mark unresolved issues explicitly. An allegation, a customer experience and an official finding are different kinds of evidence.

Keep room for correction

Review new evidence, later decisions and relevant responses. Retain a change history and revisit time-sensitive statements before publication.

Five questions for a complete review

Which legal entity operates the exact service?
What does a current regulator record establish in the relevant jurisdiction?
Are verification, withdrawal and complaint terms clear and documented?
What reliable evidence supports any reported concern, and what was the response?
What consumer protections and independent dispute routes actually apply?

The initial profiles do not answer all five questions. They show the evidence collected so far and identify gaps. No performance testing, mystery shopping or legal review has been completed.

Reading our labels

Source documented A primary-source record has been attached. This does not mean that the operator has passed a comprehensive review.

Research pending The file is incomplete. This is neither a positive nor a negative assessment of an operator.

Profiles are alphabetical. We do not assign a reliability score, market-size rank or worldwide “safe” verdict.